SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant.
(2.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying to quash the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Farrukhabad. By the impugned order, the restoration application no. 5 of 2002 filed by the appellants/respondents for recall of the order dated 16.01.2002 dismissing in default the Rent Control Appeal No. 65 of 1996 (Rajendra Prasad v. Hira Lal) has been allowed and the appeal has been restored to its original number.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that in the impugned order the court below observed that in the restoration application the appellant/respondent has not stated as to when he fell ill and when he recovered and what was the disease and therefore, mere statement on affidavit does not help the appellant/respondent. Despite this observation, the court below took lenient view and allowed the restoration application on cost of Rs. 1,000/-. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order suffers from manifest error of law, inasmuch as, absence of the appellant/respondent on 16.01.2002 was not prevented by sufficient cause.;